custombioniclefandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:Stubs
Let me be clear on this. I'm TheSlicer; I'm closing my main account and starting over. I was the one who started the trend of putting Template:Stub on short pages and deleting them after an arbitrary period of time. This is my rant. I now think that policy, as it's being used now, is hurtful. I think it makes sense to delete pages that have nothing more than an infobox and a sentence, but otherwise--even if the content would be too short to merit a page on Wikipedia--the stub template shouldn't be used. Our policy is to give users control over their page unless they specify otherwise, so we can't really add to the page to improve it--only to revise it, and that can't really make it longer. I see pages that are "wikified", with proper syntax, templates, and formatting, being nominated for deletion just because they're only a few paragraphs long. Not only is that hurtful to the community by driving off people who put effort into these pages (but who just don't make them super long) and by simply destroying content regardless of its quality, but it's unfair. The rules are being enforced arbitrarily, there's nothing the creators can often do (they don't know) and because of the nature of the wiki, nobody can add to them. Just because something's short doesn't mean that it needs fixing. The stub template should be for pages that really are almost empty, with just a brief description like "Bob controls ice" with a picture. Paragraph long? Sure, stub it. If it's long enough to divide into sections it's long enough for me. Look at, say, Temple of Henkka (stub template removed on request): short, fine. Not the best-written page. But effort was put into it, and there's no reason to delete it. To fix it, sure. Now let's look at the wikify template. It's supposed to be a call for people to improve the layout and such of a page, but it's now all but a deletion label. I've noticed a cycle: people post it on a page, ignore it, then two weeks later slap a deletion template on it. That's counterproductive to say the least. Look at Inika Man: not short at all, but nominated for deletion because it's not perfect. I think this is shameful for a fan fiction wiki, where the whole point is to store people's creations. Once again, content shouldn't just get thrown away just because it's not formatted well. Maybe it's not gone forever, but it might as well be. If something does need fixing, fix it. Don't delete it. I know the userbase doesn't care as much as I do about other people's pages--not too many people spruce up others' work out of goodwill, and I'm just doing it right now out of moral outrage that they'll get deleted otherwise. If anything, there are dozens of pages that should be undeleted. Selectively, of course. Finally, there needs to be an official policy about when a page can be deleted. All Project:Policy/Deletion says is that a page if it "does not meet the requirements of the Manual of Style". I don't think pages deserve deletion just because they don't have the right template. And it's wide open to interpretation, leading to arbitrary enforcement. I know this'll be controversial, but let's keep the discussion reasonable please. I Diotic 11:33, December 23, 2014 (UTC) Okay, allow me to address each of your concerns in a way that can hopefully put your troubles at rest. As you said, "Bob controls ice". *In response to Temple of Henkka: That page was marked by MatoranIrik. He's not a sanctioned staff member and incorrectly stubbed that page. At the end of the day, he was trying to help. Before any page is deleted, the staff is encouraged to check the article's history both to ensure that it is an article worthy of deletion and that the established two weeks have passed. In this case it was not worthy of deletion and I have removed the tag. *In response to Inika Man: This is not a serious page. It was created by a group of MOCPages users wanting to play a prank of some kind. He has no story potential whatsoever and, in my opinion, does not deserve a place on this site. It is not serious content, it is a character made to exacerbate a practical joke from nearly six months ago. Obviously the administrative staff cannot watch over the entirety of CBW's pages or know exactly how many articles are stubs at any given time. But this is a very different site to the one that you ran. We try to give our users the freedom to do their own thing and manage their own storylines. If a page does not meet the requirements of the MoS then it is that page owner's responsibility to raise it. Our requirements are honestly not that harsh and pages should not be exempt from the rules solely out of a humanitarian effort to preserve the history of the site. It's not that bright and beautiful. Many of these stub article owners are long since gone and most likely wouldn't even bat an eyelid if their content was deleted. And, even so, there's no rule prohibiting users from asking for their deleted pages to be restored. The act of deleting a page really isn't quite as monstrous a deed as you are making it out to be. The act of deleting expired stubs (a practice not all too different from the CBW of yesteryear) keeps the site fresh with relevant content that will draw in new users, make CBW look more appealing, and serves the added advantage of making the current crop of users happy about the website they socialize and work on. It seems the only people who should have a problem with it are the people who have seen their pages deleted. I wouldn't say it's hurtful to the community or that it drives those original page creators off. They're already gone. Thus far, none of them have actually come back to voice a concern and only about two people have asked for their pages to be restored since the policy adjustments were implemented earlier in this year. This is a system that has been in place for years. If pages aren't up to scratch then they get dealt with. We leave it open for the community to edit but, clearly, nobody has an interest in seeing outdated, irrelevant pages from before their time get rewritten when they could be instead contributing to their own stories. It's not the staff's job to fix these pages; we do that as a courtesy when we are able to. It's not the userbase's job; they're here on their own terms and shouldn't be made to go out of their way to improve other peoples' pages. It's the responsibility of the page creator. Only they know the best way to present their page and only they know their future plans. Our stub policy is one that works. We have a handle on things, unlike a lot of other wikis out there. The only people who I can really see being justified in having concerns are the people whose pages get deleted, and even then we give them an extra four days to fix their page upon request. A good page can be written in the best part of an hour. Two weeks is more than enough time. While I do agree with you that the policy can be made clearer (this is often the case), I sincerely don't think it would be worth undoing all that has been done over the past year, especially since I've worked hard to do a lot of it myself. I've deleted the overwhelming bulk of these pages and the only solution would be to go back and restore everything just to satisfy one or two users who don't even edit this site anymore. Sure, it may not be totally fair to everyone. But there isn't a better solution, and I'd rather cater to active users than a minority of inactive ones. Mfw edit conflict by BTD: :( To cut my now redundant wall of text short: I also believe the policy should be clearer, and that the Wikify template have it's original purpose returned: As I recall it existed to mark pages that needed a touch up to meet the MoS, not pages that were Stubs or pages that should be deleted. :--'ThatDevilGuy (Talk)' 12:23, December 23, 2014 (UTC) The Wikify and Stub templates fill the same purpose. They only become a sentence to deletion if a) the pages do not fit the policy guidelines b) nobody actually improves them over a fortnightly period. If you think there needs to be a change in the community's mentality then I encourage you both to lead the charge and make these edits to stub pages that nobody else seems to have an interest in. Surely it would be more productive that criticizing a well-oiled system people have worked harder on that most of the pages you're actually defending. I didn't mean to come in and criticise things. That's not what I meant to do. Last time I was aware of things, those two templates had different purposes. That's how long ago it was since I last came here with good intentions and paid attention. My knowledge of the site's policy is long outdated, but since there's two templates doing the same thing that is a little confusing and redundant (though replacing either one with the other will be a task, due to the differing coding of the templates (if I'm remembering the coding of the templates correctly)). I do agree that action is better than discussion. I was by no means intending to come across as only someone who criticises and not someone who does. The obvious solution is to fix the marked stubs. That deviates slightly from what I can see as Slicer's point but that is indeed a solution to a large amount of pages marked as stubs. Please don't take my words as someone who is only here to criticise a system I once enforced and by all means do agree with. I know it works and I didn't mean to say that it didn't. Imo the wikify and stub templates should have some difference between them. In my opinion at least, there's a difference between a stub and a page that needs the correct headings and paragraphing done so it fits into the MoS/LG. That's all I was saying, so I apologise if in my haste my words indicated my view was otherwise. :--'ThatDevilGuy (Talk)' 12:42, December 23, 2014 (UTC) The Wikify template refers to pages with structure weaknesses, such as problematic coding, lack of correct templates, poor grammar, incorrect use of English, and lack of the Biography, Abilities and Traits, Appearances headings established in the MoS. The Stub template refers to pages that, generally, are too short in length. Last I checked, the most recent minimum stub threshold is about 2,000 bytes. There are some variations of this but stub pages are basically meant for pages that are overall too short. In recent times, it has come to represent pages with other significant structural shortcomings outside of this criteria, mostly a lack of content or pages of an incomplete nature. This can sometimes overlap with Wikify, true, but there is still a important distinction to be made between the two. I think that they're different enough for the moment to leave them separate. Once this load of stubs is either deleted or improved upon and the category is nearly empty we can see about more effectively dividing or indeed merging the two. I do appreciate you both voicing these concerns, and I do concede that they are very valid ones. It really should not be the mindset here that pages are doomed to deletion if marked as a stub, but I also don't believe that responsibility should fall to the staff to fix them considering so many of these pages belong to inactive users. Ah, that's the distinction I needed to hear. Thanks for being patient with me Bob and thanks for taking the time to explain. I really do apologise for causing such a fuss. This is Slicer's thing and I feel kinda bad for taking some of the limelight, so I'm going to bed now. --'ThatDevilGuy (Talk)' 13:15, December 23, 2014 (UTC) You've made a lot of good points. I'm gonna address a couple right now: *You described it as a well-oiled system, but without an official policy in place it's still fairly arbitrary. Maybe it should be based on word count: 70 or 100 words minimum in the body of the article. Not sure yet, really. *I don't see the need to delete pages that aren't so good. It's not like there's a space limit on the wiki; the only purpose seems to me that we think they're unappealing. I'd much rather see two hundred pages indefinitely labeled as needing improvement than two hundred pages deleted after two weeks. Especially those that just need "wikification" to be aligned with the MoS. I think redlinks are uglier than pages with bad formatting. *Keeping the site fresh with relevant content is the job of new users, not old ones, but that doesn't mean that old ones' work can just be thrown away. It shouldn't be the administration's policy to clean up what we don't like, but just to clean up stuff that's only half there. *If the stub template were used consistently and appropriately to mark pages that need expansion, I'd be fine if it were used as a death sentence if the page doesn't get improved. What I'm not fine with is the deletion countdown with the wikify template, which should just be a label for an easy fix. That's all for the moment. I Diotic 18:50, December 23, 2014 (UTC) Like I said, the current minimum is about 2000 bytes of content. Word count can vary and templates can eat into that number. I would argue that there is a real need to delete these pages. People who come on CBW aren't going to be as objective or considerate enough to see this site as an archive for past creations. In truth, it's not and it was never meant to be one. Pages that have been stubs from 2010 should simply not still be on display. For the first time ever, we're finally in control of the content that represents this site. Over the past few years, stub articles were left unchecked and the whole situation spiraled undeniably out of control. It was like an overgrown garden of stubs, outdated templates, and bad grammar. I was afraid to click the . This is what comes from not taking action. It was a legitimate problem. When I first joined in 2009 it was the sheer magnitude of poorly-maintained pages that drove me away and kept me from this community. I'm sure a lot of other people have been in this situation, so it's not unreasonable to delete pages that are left in this condition for so long, provided that they violate policy, which they all do. We seem to be at an impasse regarding the virtue of the policy. I just don't think that's fair. The two of us should focus instead on getting an official minimum size passed. I Diotic 19:29, December 23, 2014 (UTC) I think that actually defining what a 'stub' is may also need some consideration. Some pages (take many kanohi articles, for example), are below the 2,000 byte limit that is currently set but aren't in any need for wikification and there is nothing that can be added. However, I would not call them stubs because the amount of content within the page is appropriate to the type of page in question. I believe that the same can be said for some power and object articles as well. --[[User:Rando07|'Rando']][[User talk:RandoMaster07|'07']] 19:34, December 23, 2014 (UTC) The 2000 bytes rule excluded Kanohi and weapons pages that may fall short. It's mainly for character articles and stories. Are element pages exempt from this rule?